Boy, 15, kills himself after 'facing expulsion and being put on sex offender registry' for streaking prank at high school football game

+ Christian Adamek hanged himself on October 2 and died from his injuries two days later - a week after he streaked at his high school football game

+ He was arrested and school district recommended he face a court hearing

+ If convicted of indecent exposure, he'd have gone on sex offenders list

By Lydia Warren

“Christian Adamek, from Huntsville, Alabama, hanged himself on October 2, a week after he was arrested for running naked across the Sparkman High football field during a game. The teenager died two days later from his injuries and on Wednesday, friends and family gathered at a memorial service as they struggled to comprehend the beloved student’s death. A video of Adamek streaking during a game against a rival team was posted on YouTube hours after the event and students took to Twitter to call him a ‘legend.’ ‘Sparkman’s new slogan is gonna be “Welcome to Sparkman High School, Home of Christian Adamek,”‘ one student wrote. But school staff did not treat the situation so lightly. Sparkman High Principal Michael Campbell told WHNT a day before the suicide attempt that the teen could face major repercussions because of his actions. ‘There’s the legal complications,’ Campbell said. ‘Public lewdness and court consequences outside of school with the legal system, as well as the school consequences that the school system has set up.’ In Alabama, indecent exposure is linked to the state’s sex offender laws, meaning that he could have found himself on the sex offenders register due to the streaking. Campbell added that that the incident was not just a prank and needed to be treated seriously. Sparkman High administrators even recommended that Adamek face a hearing in the Madison County court system to determine if formal charges would be filed, WHNT reported. Adamek had also been disciplined by the school district but the details had not been made public.

The day before the suicide attempt, the principal had confirmed that Adamek was not at school and the teenager’s sister suggested on Twitter that Adamek faced expulsion, AL.com reported.

Campbell declined to comment on Adamek’s death but the Madison County school district issued a statement saying it had ‘received word that a Sparkman High School student has passed away.’Our prayers and thoughts are with the family during this time of bereavement,’ the statement read. The messages on Twitter have now turned from congratulatory to somber. ’Praying for the Adamek family. Christian was so funny and nice. He will be missed by so many,’ one girl wrote. ‘He was one that brightened the room when he walked in. That’s what I’ll always remember about Christian.’”

The tragic death of Christian Adamek is a complete moral failure of the social and legal mores surrounding this child and in many ways, all of us. This is a situation that should deeply move every naturist and any sane thinking person. This horrible event raises multiple questions of great concern for our society. How about in this blog we just start with some basic constitutional principles – we can move on to more subtle issues in subsequent blogs.

It seems that somewhere in the history of our nation and its jurisprudence there have been included some very important and fundamental concepts such as; “punishment befitting a crime,” and protection of our citizenry from “cruel and unusual punishment.” In what universe could threatening and /or actually putting a streaking child prankster on a sex offender registry, a legal action that may literally destroy a person’s life, be considered in any way as “punishment befitting the crime”? In fact, Alabama state law itself classifies “indecent exposure” only as a misdemeanor. How do we get from a misdemeanor to threats of a sex offender registry? Shouldn’t one have to commit more than a “misdemeanor” to become a sex offender? Is this not pushing up against cruel and unusual punishment? Do we limit our understanding of “cruel and unusual” to mere physical torture? Does anyone remember the great novel - The Scarlet Letter - where the life of the protagonist is destroyed by social stigmatization for a relatively minor (by today’s standards) moral failure? Is it not just as cruel and unusual to slowly destroy an innocent person’s life, as in this case, through a “scarlet letter” – a sex registry – as it is to physically torture them?

The concept of streaking is well known, long standing and has been engaged in as a matter of pure ‘prankishness’ in all manner of different settings for decades both here in the United States and abroad. Have these law enforcement Neanderthals in Alabama somehow missed out on the past 30 or 40 years of American and International history? Where, aside from perhaps Alabama, has there ever been a valid legal precedent set which in any way identifies streaking solely as a sex crime in any real ontological sense? Perhaps it may be misconstrued as such by rank amateurs in law enforcement – but certainly not in terms of actual criminal science. There are those, like these fanatics involved law enforcement in Alabama, who may debate the relative level of “offense” that streaking may arouse, just like there are those prudes out there who debate the level of offense of a mother innocently nursing her child on a park bench. But to any sane person neither streaking, nor publicly breastfeeding a baby, is in any way a sexual act. Only a complete imbecile would think differently. It is absurd enough that adults can become sex offenders merely by being naked in public. But a 15 year old kid? For an age-old prank? Such a charge is horribly unjust. Furthermore, those who cannot morally distinguish between true sex crime, like rape, or other forms of real sexual assault, and something as nonsexual as streaking across a football field in front of thousands of people do not qualify to be involved in any form of law enforcement. Period.

What then should we make of a school system, and local law enforcement who threatens a child with sex offender registry for streaking? We begin by noting bluntly that these decision makers are morally blind fanatics, ‘jack-boot’ authoritarians consumed with self importance, lacking common sense, and of cruel intent. They are sick schoolyard bullies. Their actions toward this child are self serving and are in no way in the interests of loving, restorative discipline or social order. Out of pure hubris they grossly and incompetently swat flies with sludge hammers, and the result is that an emotionally immature youth is now dead – a youth who deserved guidance, not bullying threats. Parents, family, and community stand in utter shock and grief because law enforcement bullies were not capable of making even the simplest of moral distinctions. How sad for this child, for his family and for all of us. There should be resignations demanded and flags at half mast across this nation. But, I digress – have I somehow forgotten – we the people don’t matter to these authoritarian creeps, and neither did Christian Adamek.

And to help LP-1's understand, "I am Sanman and I agree with Steve & Susanne's response."

It was a stupid prank. Yes the kid should have been suspended for a week, not expelled. But kids today have got to get there heads out of there asses! School districts across america act like Nanny of the month and courts room judges are upholding school distrits rulings. Like the girl in Mass. who went to pick up a drunk friend at a party. school district has a 0% tolerance on alcohal at school or at home. The 17 yr old volley ball who was also team captain was benched for being at a party with alcohal. when police raided the party the teen was questioned but released on the spot by police. The school district still applied its 0% tolerance since she was at a off campous private event and even though she was there for 5 minutes retreaving a drunk friend, the school district found her guilty. The local judge agreed with the school district saying rules are rules. This is a great example of the school districts being allowed to play Nanny and getting away with it. The parents of the girl have sued but the suit was thrown out by another district judge so the parents are having tosue in Federal court under the claim of civil rights violation. But going back to the boy. He was a minor so the sex offender charge would drop at age 18. As for expultion. He could have attended a private school. He screwed up plain and simple. As for taking his life.... that was a very selfish act he did. Only person he hurt was his parents. He took something away from them that no one can ever replace, and for that he is wrong. I also hold the parents accountable. He should have been taught by them that if he wants to run naked at a proper place then go for it, but to do a stupid stunt like run naked across a football field, he would be in a world of legal problems! I watched a guy strip butt naked at a Outback steak house bar and walk out of the restraunt for loosing a bet. It was funny. Everyone laughed. He dressed and came back in. 5 minutes later at the bar he was being hand cuffed and it was quite the legal gossip. As he was a popular lawyer her. In the end due to video phones, he was convicted of a sex crime and had to register as a sex offender for exposing himself in a public place where minors were present. The law is the law. What is the difference in what he did VS a slimmy guy in a trench coat flashing old ladies on the corner. Exposing one's genatalia in a public place however done is against the law. If he enjoyed being a nudist, maybe the family should have explored a nudist beach or camp for the youth. I'm very sorry for the families loss and for the childs sincless act of suicide.

Let me see if I have this straight. A girl/guy attending a private college was suspended for one week because they may, or may not, have been guilty of attending an off-campus party where at the very least, there was alcohol, has parents with the money to sue the school several times and lose so they then take the very expensive case to the Federal Court. Because she or he was suspended for one fucking week?And you're worried about a nanny state?

0

_______________"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable. _____________

Let me see if I have this straight. A girl/guy attending a private college was suspended for one week because they may or may not have been guilty of attending an off-campus party where at the very least, there was alcohol, has parents with the money to sue the school several times take and even waste the time of the Federal Court. Because she or he was suspended for one fucking week?And you're worried about a nanny state?

I think you nailed it once again...it is always funny how "small government" folks want to pick and choose when small government is used. My question is WHEN will the schools and courts be charged with bullying?

Let me see if I have this straight. A girl/guy attending a private college was suspended for one week because they may, or may not, have been guilty of attending an off-campus party where at the very least, there was alcohol, has parents with the money to sue the school several times and lose so they then take the very expensive case to the Federal Court. Because she or he was suspended for one fucking week?And you're worried about a nanny state?

No, you haven't got it straight... it was a public high school, not a private college. Attendance at public school is mandatory unless you're in private or home schooled. The nanny state imposes itself on you and your children with compulsory attendance, and also wants to run your private life outside of school.

No, you haven't got it straight... it was a public high school, not a private college. Attendance at public school is mandatory unless you're in private or home schooled. The nanny state imposes itself on you and your children with compulsory attendance, and also wants to run your private life outside of school.

Ahh, so teaching your child to expect every decision they witness in life to be perfect and if it isn't use your money to cost people as much personal time and money as possible no matter how slight the bad decision was, teaches them to be good mature citizens? And you wonder why I question the genius IQ you claim and think you're an idiot?

0

_______________"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable. _____________

It was a stupid prank. Yes the kid should have been suspended for a week, not expelled. But kids today have got to get there heads out of there asses! School districts across america act like Nanny of the month and courts room judges are upholding school distrits rulings.

....

....

He should have been taught by them that if he wants to run naked at a proper place then go for it, but to do a stupid stunt like run naked across a football field, he would be in a world of legal problems! I watched a guy strip butt naked at a Outback steak house bar and walk out of the restraunt for loosing a bet. It was funny. Everyone laughed. He dressed and came back in. 5 minutes later at the bar he was being hand cuffed and it was quite the legal gossip. As he was a popular lawyer her. In the end due to video phones, he was convicted of a sex crime and had to register as a sex offender for exposing himself in a public place where minors were present. The law is the law. What is the difference in what he did VS a slimmy guy in a trench coat flashing old ladies on the corner. Exposing one's genatalia in a public place however done is against the law. If he enjoyed being a nudist, maybe the family should have explored a nudist beach or camp for the youth. I'm very sorry for the families loss and for the childs sincless act of suicide.

"The law", that is, statutory law, is NOT "THE LAW" (the common law or the "natural law"). The guy at the bar loosing a bet, this is obviously not a sex crime. You even admit, everyone laughed and though it funny. A flasher in a trench coat is completely different, as his motivation IS to purposely cause alarm in his victims and get a sexual gratification from exposing himself. A guy streaking at a football game in the '70s was a light-hearted prank and in no way sexual.

(12) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.

§21.08. Indecent exposure.

(a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.

RULE §59.134 Rules of Conduct in Parks (Texas State Parks)

(h) Nudity and disrobing. It is an offense to appear nude.

******************

If you read the Texas statues concerning nudity, you can see that indecent exposure (a sex crime) MUST include the INTENT of that person to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Streaking obviously fails to meet the requirement of this statute, and therefore the govenrment was wrong to prosecute. Only when in a Texas state park is simply being nude an offense.

All that asside, the ultimate LAW, the common law - if there is no victim, there is NO CRIME! This is why 99% of all statutory "law" is unlawful!

Ahh, so teaching your child to expect every decision they witness in life to be perfect and if it isn't use your money to cost people as much personal time and money as possible no matter how slight the bad decision was, teaches them to be good mature citizens? And you wonder why I question the genius IQ you claim and think you're an idiot?

That's a very idiotic statement to make. Of course not every decision is perfect, nor is life fair, but it is perfectly within their rights to fight an injustice to the best of their ability. The real shame is that people without money can never get justice! It is the assinine government that costs taxpayers money. If you put up with small things, you'll soon be overrun with big injustices, just like we're seeing now in the USA.

"The law", that is, statutory law, is NOT "THE LAW" (the common law or the "natural law"). The guy at the bar loosing a bet, this is obviously not a sex crime. You even admit, everyone laughed and though it funny. A flasher in a trench coat is completely different, as his motivation IS to purposely cause alarm in his victims and get a sexual gratification from exposing himself. A guy streaking at a football game in the '70s was a light-hearted prank and in no way sexual.

(12) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.

§21.08. Indecent exposure.

(a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.

RULE §59.134 Rules of Conduct in Parks (Texas State Parks)

(h) Nudity and disrobing. It is an offense to appear nude.

******************

If you read the Texas statues concerning nudity, you can see that indecent exposure (a sex crime) MUST include the INTENT of that person to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Streaking obviously fails to meet the requirement of this statute, and therefore the govenrment was wrong to prosecute. Only when in a Texas state park is simply being nude an offense.

All that asside, the ultimate LAW, the common law - if there is no victim, there is NO CRIME! This is why 99% of all statutory "law" is unlawful!

If the naked woman is pretty her running isn't going to stop me from being turned on. Hell, it might more of a turn on.

0

_______________"Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable. _____________

If the naked woman is pretty her running isn't going to stop me from being turned on. Hell, it might more of a turn on.

That's not her problem, nor are her actions intended to turn you or anyone else on. There are plenty more women "legally" covered in bikinis or even formal dresses that sexually entice more men than any fully naked woman not acting provocatively ever has. The real crime is charging a naked person for an offense soley because of your reaction to it.